The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[GHook93]

Depends on which rich person you are talking about:

(1) Executives at a large C-Corp: They get paid tradition income tax. Some buck the system, like Buffet, and issue stock options instead. For C-Corps the corporate, payroll and capital gains taxes effects their employment decisions not the income tax.

(2) The Rich Personal Investor: Income tax won't effect this guy since he is just investing his own money. HOWEVER, capital gains will. Say he is a venture capitalist. Capital gains will take away the amount he can invest in business or product he wants to invest in. Its also is disincentive to invest in the first place. Herman Cain is 100% right when he says capital gains are barrier between the business and the investor. Raise CG and you hurt people with big great ideas needing an investor.

(3) The Trust Fund Baby: They have other people manage their money. Not going to help or hurt them no matter where their taxes are at.

(4) SUCCESSFUL Small Business NON-C-Corps: This is 60% of the employers. Small businesses are defined as companies that employee <500 employees. Some small business aren't so small. These business can be SP, Partnerships, LLC, LLP and S-Corps. All these organizations have flow through taxation. So unlike the C-Corps they are not taxed at the entity level (Corporate tax) they are taxed on income by the owners. That mean they get hit with the income tax. Any raising in the income tax takes money away from the business. Take money away from the business mean cuts in other place (usually employment) and less hiring. Raising income tax hurts big time on employment here.
Then you have the payroll tax. While the payroll tax hurts C-Corps its a small business killer!

It also depends what you mean by rich. If you think rich is, as Obama thinks rich is, $250K and above then you are going to hit alot of Successful Small Business employers. If you think rich is $1 mil and above then you are probably save in that fact that it will hit mostly executive and highly compensated key employees in C-Corps, hence no effect on hiring.

If your small business profits more than 250k a year its probably not small.

Sure it is. It can be a one or two employee operation.

Or it can be a 500 employee operations with 20 shareholders in an S-Corp

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see rich people starting up businesses and hiring people around here. I do see regular middle/working class types doing so though.

Well there ya go, anecdotal evidence trumps everything!

So you've seen the tax returns of these people you see starting businesses, right?

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076.

The Average Income of Small Business Owners | Small Business - Chron.com

 

[lizzie]

I don't see rich people starting up businesses and hiring people around here. I do see regular middle/working class types doing so though.

Well there ya go, anecdotal evidence trumps everything!

So you've seen the tax returns of these people you see starting businesses, right?

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076.

The Average Income of Small Business Owners | Small Business - Chron.com

Ummm- easy to explain. It takes most small businesses at least 5 years to get off the ground. In that time, the owner typically makes very little income, and often has no employees. His "salary" does not reflect the capital and time being put into the endeavor.

 

[Crackerjack]

I don't see rich people starting up businesses and hiring people around here. I do see regular middle/working class types doing so though.

Well there ya go, anecdotal evidence trumps everything!

So you've seen the tax returns of these people you see starting businesses, right?

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076.

The Average Income of Small Business Owners | Small Business - Chron.com

Yeah. That would be the salary they earn after they start the business.

Way to move the goalposts! Keep working on your Google-fu, grasshopper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There would be no demand if there weren't rich people paying people money which they in turn use to CREATE A DEMAND for a product because they use that money to buy shit.

LOL! So without the rich, people wouldn't want to eat! Got it!


You are such a ******* moron. You really think that without wealthy people, all the farmland would lay fallow, don't you?

Did one caveman need a RICH guy to enable him to trade a arrow head he makes for a fish that another caveman caught?

The caveman with two arrowheads was rich. At least compared to the caveman with only one arrowhead.

Its amazing that either of the cavemen were able to live at all without rich people.

 

[lizzie]

Its amazing that either of the cavemen were able to live at all without rich people.

Not at all, and anytime you would like to kill your own food with sticks and points and dwell in caves and cliffs, you are perfectly welcome to do so. I don't recommend it though. It's hellish living and you probably won't survive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Depends on which rich person you are talking about:

(1) Executives at a large C-Corp: They get paid tradition income tax. Some buck the system, like Buffet, and issue stock options instead. For C-Corps the corporate, payroll and capital gains taxes effects their employment decisions not the income tax.

(2) The Rich Personal Investor: Income tax won't effect this guy since he is just investing his own money. HOWEVER, capital gains will. Say he is a venture capitalist. Capital gains will take away the amount he can invest in business or product he wants to invest in. Its also is disincentive to invest in the first place. Herman Cain is 100% right when he says capital gains are barrier between the business and the investor. Raise CG and you hurt people with big great ideas needing an investor.

(3) The Trust Fund Baby: They have other people manage their money. Not going to help or hurt them no matter where their taxes are at.

(4) SUCCESSFUL Small Business NON-C-Corps: This is 60% of the employers. Small businesses are defined as companies that employee <500 employees. Some small business aren't so small. These business can be SP, Partnerships, LLC, LLP and S-Corps. All these organizations have flow through taxation. So unlike the C-Corps they are not taxed at the entity level (Corporate tax) they are taxed on income by the owners. That mean they get hit with the income tax. Any raising in the income tax takes money away from the business. Take money away from the business mean cuts in other place (usually employment) and less hiring. Raising income tax hurts big time on employment here.
Then you have the payroll tax. While the payroll tax hurts C-Corps its a small business killer!

It also depends what you mean by rich. If you think rich is, as Obama thinks rich is, $250K and above then you are going to hit alot of Successful Small Business employers. If you think rich is $1 mil and above then you are probably save in that fact that it will hit mostly executive and highly compensated key employees in C-Corps, hence no effect on hiring.

If your small business profits more than 250k a year its probably not small.

Bullshit.
Lots fo small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) gross well over one million dollars annually.
I suppose this is an indication that you are focused on a money grab from them( small business) as well.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who the hell said anything about confiscating anything?

The point is that tax breaks for a single person with money would do nothing compared with helping 1,000 people who will all be making purchases. The same purchases x1000. That has a much larger affect on the economy and job creation than a tax break for a millionaire.

"Take 35,000,000 and give it to a thousand people"

Sounds like confiscation to me.

Better to nickel and dime a 1000000 people for $35 each and give it all to one person.

Why?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its amazing that either of the cavemen were able to live at all without rich people.

Not at all, and anytime you would like to kill your own food with sticks and points and dwell in caves and cliffs, you are perfectly welcome to do so. I don't recommend it though. It's hellish living and you probably won't survive.

Well then its a dog gone good thing we got all these rich folk around to civilize the rest of us. My gawd, I loves rich people! They're so awesome! Without them the rest of us dumb lot would all just die of starvation!

In fact, I'm setting up my own charity to help them out! How much are you willing to donate to a rich person TODAY? For only $100 a month, you can give them what they need to create another job in China.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually that's not true, the government certainly can create jobs and it does produce. However, that's not really the answer to look for.

The government can create jobs in the sames sense that I can win the lottery. Yeah, it's possible, but on I'm not planning my next vacation based on the possibility. What the government really does is dispense paychecks. A job is a productive activity. Jobs produces goods and services that people actually want. Government doesn't produce anything people want when it dispense paychecks. In fact, it generally produces a lot of stuff that people don't want, like crime, dependency and drug addiction.

The proper answer is that it's the wrong question. We're not facing a problem of CAN. We're facing a problem of WILL. Jobs WILL not be created as long as there are no customers for the products to be produced by them.

The underlying problem is that wealth in our economy is badly maldistributed. Too much of it is going to too few people. Those few people don't represent enough consumer demand to justify investing all that money in anything productive.

No, that's not the underlying problem. All you're saying is that useless ticks don't have a big enough claim on the output of the productive.

The solution is to redistribute wealth: drive wages up, bring manufacturing home, encourage unions, discourage concentration of wealth. This will not only be fairer, but also help the economy. Because what the economy is suffering from at this time is a customer shortage, and higher wages will create more customers (or more affluent customers which amounts to the same thing).

More money to rich people will NOT create jobs.

More money to middle class and poor people WILL create jobs.

It's that simple.

How is taking money by force from the people who earned it "more fair?" According to what definition is theft "fair?" How do government transfer payments "drive wages up?" All they do is decrease the wages of some people who actually work, so the government can dispense swag to people who don't work. Encouraging unions doesn't increase work. It decreases work by driving up the price of labor. The more expensive a given type of labor is, the less of it corporations will purchase. That's a basic principle of economics called "the laws of supply and demand."

Yeah, it's "simple" alright. It's simple in the sense of stupid. Economists disposed of all your Marxist theories a century ago. They don't work, the the empirical record shows it.

 

[editec]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

 

[The Rabbi]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

 

[Truthseeker420]

off course not.. that is just a Republican talking point to make people continue to give corporations a free ride.

 

[RDD_1210]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

You can pretty much be sure that anything Rabbi believes, the opposite is probably closer to the truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

You can pretty much be sure that anything Rabbi believes, the opposite is probably closer to the truth.

Translation: I cannot refute the facts so I will assassinate the character of the speaker.
Good going, RD! Proving yourself among the most bungling posters here.

 

[Dragon]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Also, you have many of your facts dead wrong.

Coolidge cut taxes because World War I was over and the high taxes were meant to pay for the war, not as a stimulus. He was the beneficiary of a bubble-driven boom, and he himself was sure it wouldn't last, hence his decision not to run for president in 1928.

Kennedy's tax cut was abandoning the prior idea of discouraging concentration of wealth, and using top tax rates purely as revenue. 77%, where he set the rate, studies show is probably the REAL Laffer point, where higher taxes result in lower revenue. The prosperity of his term was certainly not the result of that tax cut, since it didn't take effect until after his death.

Reagan's tax cut in 1981 was followed by over a year of severe recession, the worst since the Great Depression. The economy didn't fully pick up until 1983, when oil prices dropped after a decade of soaring.

Bush's tax cut -- well, the 2000s speak for themselves, as does the deluge that came at their end.

Since the nation switched back to supply-side economics in the 1980s, per capita economic growth has dropped by more than 50%. THAT'S a fact, Jack.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

They responded as Reagan opened up the government check book started the credit card boom.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so every cut was followed by prosperity but we can't attribute causality to it. This is because we attribute its cause to something else.
You have contradicted yourself grandly, in addition to spewing misinformation gleaned from leftist sources no doubt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Macro-economically the trickle down theory has NEVER worked.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

They responded as Reagan opened up the government check book started the credit card boom.

Obama's deficiits are bigger than Reagan's entire budgets and the economy failed to respond. So FAIL.

 

[Full-Auto]

off course not.. that is just a Republican talking point to make people continue to give corporations a free ride.

Talking point?

as democrats insisted the crooks get bonuses by law. That the bankrupt companies run by cronies dont lose a personal dime.

Who provided that free ride again>?